Benjamin Hager1, Klaus Kraywinkel2, Bastian Keck3, Alexander Katalinic4, Martin Meyer5, Sylke Ruth Zeissig6, Roland Stabenow7, Michael Froehner1, Johannes Huber8. 1. Department of Urology, TU Dresden, Germany. 2. National Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany. 4. Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany. 5. Population-Based Cancer Registry, Bavaria, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Cancer Registry Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz, Germany. 7. Common Cancer Registry of the Federal States Berlin/Brandenburg/Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Sachsen-Anhalt/Sachsen/Thüringen, Berlin, Germany. 8. Department of Urology, TU Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: johannes.huber@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Aim of the study was to analyze changes in primary treatment for low-risk prostate cancer across different healthcare systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared "Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results" data (USA) with data from four German federal epidemiological cancer registries, both from 2004 to 2011. We excluded metastatic disease and patients aged ⩾80 years. Thereof, we identified 132,506 (USA) and 54,159 (Germany) patients with low-risk according to the 2014 EAU guidelines. We tested treatment trends for statistical significance with a linear regression model. RESULTS: Active treatment was radical prostatectomy (RP) in 36.1% vs. 66.2% and radiotherapy (RT) in 38.4% vs. 11.8%. No active treatment (NAT) was reported in 24.2% vs. 16.2% (p<0.001 each). Through the study period the use of RP decreased from 37.1% to 34.2% in the USA (p=0.04) and was constant at a mean of 66.2% in Germany (p=0.8). The use of RT in the USA decreased from 42.8% to 31.8% (p<0.001), while it was stable in Germany (p=0.09). The NAT group grew from 18.0% to 33.2% in the USA (p<0.001), while it was stable in Germany until 2009 (p=0.3). From 2009 to 2011 there also was an increase of the NAT group in Germany from 15.2% to 19.4% (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In contrast to former evidence we found the relative use of RT for low-risk prostate cancer much higher in the USA compared to Germany. The implementation of integrated prostate cancer centers in the USA might explain this observation. Deferred and defensive treatment strategies showed a steady increase in the USA. This development seems delayed in Germany by several years.
INTRODUCTION: Aim of the study was to analyze changes in primary treatment for low-risk prostate cancer across different healthcare systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared "Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results" data (USA) with data from four German federal epidemiological cancer registries, both from 2004 to 2011. We excluded metastatic disease and patients aged ⩾80 years. Thereof, we identified 132,506 (USA) and 54,159 (Germany) patients with low-risk according to the 2014 EAU guidelines. We tested treatment trends for statistical significance with a linear regression model. RESULTS: Active treatment was radical prostatectomy (RP) in 36.1% vs. 66.2% and radiotherapy (RT) in 38.4% vs. 11.8%. No active treatment (NAT) was reported in 24.2% vs. 16.2% (p<0.001 each). Through the study period the use of RP decreased from 37.1% to 34.2% in the USA (p=0.04) and was constant at a mean of 66.2% in Germany (p=0.8). The use of RT in the USA decreased from 42.8% to 31.8% (p<0.001), while it was stable in Germany (p=0.09). The NAT group grew from 18.0% to 33.2% in the USA (p<0.001), while it was stable in Germany until 2009 (p=0.3). From 2009 to 2011 there also was an increase of the NAT group in Germany from 15.2% to 19.4% (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In contrast to former evidence we found the relative use of RT for low-risk prostate cancer much higher in the USA compared to Germany. The implementation of integrated prostate cancer centers in the USA might explain this observation. Deferred and defensive treatment strategies showed a steady increase in the USA. This development seems delayed in Germany by several years.
Authors: C Ostheimer; C Evers; F Palm; R Mikolajczyk; D Vordermark; Daniel Medenwald Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Rasa Ruseckaite; Kerri Beckmann; Michael O'Callaghan; David Roder; Kim Moretti; Jeremy Millar; Sue Evans Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 4.430